From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F124C433F5 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 07:52:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDE360FE7 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 07:52:03 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 2EDE360FE7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id AC7A06B0074; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 02:52:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A785A6B0078; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 02:52:02 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 967636B007B; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 02:52:02 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0207.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.207]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4486B0074 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 02:52:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin28.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455E8180339D4 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 07:52:02 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78799509684.28.A2C9C2D Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2BCF00008E for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 07:51:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1C51FDC1; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 07:51:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1636703518; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4eMX7TMvJ0ihc860r22e2HZ4Cwsqms8Yzpn9g90MXM8=; b=hSJz3FWqJKqbxal213cJIhQ2EpexvzZhCOOoO2UAULCqwvPn+HVt0mloZUoDAM3ZtXTVkh FVH3ALfn1CD/pqHOVUP9Uj5Otd1xMm4/dWQWWq1tZ3kFLVJoyiOQ4DLpZ8XX5r+ZWClKdz PaHW9BZI7aywr1kzXIRDCXK4+ZX3fSQ= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFAD5A3B8A; Fri, 12 Nov 2021 07:51:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 08:51:56 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Mina Almasry Cc: Theodore Ts'o , Greg Thelen , Shakeel Butt , Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , Roman Gushchin , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Vladimir Davydov , Muchun Song , riel@surriel.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] mm/oom: handle remote ooms Message-ID: References: <20211111234203.1824138-1-almasrymina@google.com> <20211111234203.1824138-3-almasrymina@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211111234203.1824138-3-almasrymina@google.com> X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7F2BCF00008E X-Stat-Signature: ey3chaog8re9xesrhse3i4htficusqdo Authentication-Results: imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=hSJz3FWq; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.29 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com X-HE-Tag: 1636703509-951355 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu 11-11-21 15:42:01, Mina Almasry wrote: > On remote ooms (OOMs due to remote charging), the oom-killer will attempt > to find a task to kill in the memcg under oom, if the oom-killer > is unable to find one, the oom-killer should simply return ENOMEM to the > allocating process. This really begs for some justification. > If we're in pagefault path and we're unable to return ENOMEM to the > allocating process, we instead kill the allocating process. Why do you handle those differently? > Signed-off-by: Mina Almasry > > Cc: Michal Hocko > Cc: Theodore Ts'o > Cc: Greg Thelen > Cc: Shakeel Butt > Cc: Andrew Morton > Cc: Hugh Dickins > CC: Roman Gushchin > Cc: Johannes Weiner > Cc: Hugh Dickins > Cc: Tejun Heo > Cc: Vladimir Davydov > Cc: Muchun Song > Cc: riel@surriel.com > Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org > Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org > Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs